Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 478910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 186

Thread: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

  1. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    270 degree of Singapore
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    may be they can write more articles about copyright issue for layman to raise awareness, I bet a lot of people are interested to know. That probably would be better than an apology.
    Sony Alpha 700 hobbyist

  2. #162
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    Yup... an apology here would not suffice...

    I'll be waiting for it in the papers...
    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

  3. #163

    Default Re: Online petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?STCopyr&1

    Quote Originally Posted by Sumiko Tan
    I note the contents and sentiments of the undersigned and would like to take
    this opportunity to clarify the matter.

    The LifeStyle story was on the proliferation of personal blogs, and the use
    of the photographs as a montage on the cover was my attempt to present the topic
    in a visually attractive manner. There was no intent to present the subjects in
    an unfavourable light.

    I accept that I should have obtained permission to use the photographs. I apologise
    for this lapse.

    Sumiko Tan
    Editor, LifeStyle
    Using the photos is but half of the story.

    Those people identifyable in your article might not have intention to be to be associated with your "iwant2bfamous" title. Especially the following paragraph.... :"and every one of this bloggers have this aim: Read me. I want to be famous". This assumution is flawed.

    Rather, most Sg bloggers are personal in nature for express themselves in cyberspace and sharing amongst friends and whosoever their target audiences or to have their personal point of view "documented". Your article MIGHT be more applicapable to the latter.

    Then again, for the latter, examples such as Citizen journalism would have either gone for or against the main stream publications either to support or defend the cause. These bloggers clearly also do not have "Read me. I want to be famous" intent, they are just being Singaporean wanting to add their 5c worth into current hot topics.

    Being a publication of big influence and broad audiences, an apology and/or clarification in the same publication is in order so that the distress to those people identified from the photos in your article can be redressed to the same audience of your publication.
    Last edited by CYRN; 14th August 2006 at 08:35 PM.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  4. #164

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    hi guys, it would be great if you could drop a line to the Straits Times to ask them to print the apology
    I will be asking for that too, but more voices will be helpful
    Just mention the petition on Copyright Infringement for the article on bloggers. it was sent to the below four people

    Han Fook Kwang
    Editor Office: (65) 6319 5421
    Home: (65) 6288 2696
    Email: hanfk@sph.com.sg

    Felix Soh
    Deputy Editor Office: (65) 6319 5313
    Hp: (65) 9683 0663
    Email: felix@sph.com.sg

    Ms Sumiko Tan
    Life! & Sunday Life! Editor Office: (65) 6319 5345
    Email: stlife@sph.com.sg

    Kong Soon Wah
    Forum Page Editor Office: (65) 6319 5438
    Email: stforum@sph.com.sg

  5. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock
    hi guys, it would be great if you could drop a line to the Straits Times to ask them to print the apology
    I will be asking for that too, but more voices will be helpful
    Just mention the petition on Copyright Infringement for the article on bloggers. it was sent to the below four people

    Han Fook Kwang
    Editor Office: (65) 6319 5421
    Home: (65) 6288 2696
    Email: hanfk@sph.com.sg

    Felix Soh
    Deputy Editor Office: (65) 6319 5313
    Hp: (65) 9683 0663
    Email: felix@sph.com.sg

    Ms Sumiko Tan
    Life! & Sunday Life! Editor Office: (65) 6319 5345
    Email: stlife@sph.com.sg

    Kong Soon Wah
    Forum Page Editor Office: (65) 6319 5438
    Email: stforum@sph.com.sg
    No problem, have sent them all a mail.

  6. #166

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    IMHO... spamming their e-mails isn't a solution.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  7. #167

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    A very interesting thread indeed. I would say several CSers here wrote professionally to deal with the situation regarding infringement of copyrights and intrusion of privacy. Kudos to CS.

    While the printed media barely reached a few hundred thousand audiences, cyber space extends this discussion beyond the diamond borders of Singapore. Well, in a certain light, she sounded sincere on the said mistakes.

    Anyway, Mattlock, all the best to your pursuit.

  8. #168

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    yes I think it's more effective to call them rather than email.thanks for the help! and avoid spam heheh.

  9. #169

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    i'm really surprise that she even register to post and offer a apology. btw, is it really the lifestyle editor?

    well, who know, maybe u really can pull it off and managed to get ST to apologise on mainstream media.

    good luck!

  10. #170

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    humm... just wondering why people spend tons of money to copyright their stuff if there is such a thing as automatic copyright? There is a specialised group of lawyers dealing with IP and copyright documentation. Pictures uploaded to friendster or any of the free blog may belong to freindster or the blog site automatically. If they allow the pictures to be published, the individual owners of the photos have no case to sue them. Just my thought.

    So what is the next course of action if ST just ignore. What else can we do?

  11. #171
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    West
    Posts
    3,311

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    This again reinforces the very REAL need for photographers to always DOWNSIZE and REDUCE resolution/quality of the pictures they post on the web.

    Anyway, I don't think privacy issues really apply ...? Blogging is web-publishing. If there was no intention to show a picture publicly, why publish it online?

    And even if it is proven there was nothing legally wrong in publishing those photos... doesn't ST expect people to respect the copyrights to the photos shot by ST photographers and published in their newspaper? Why are there not clearer guidelines for their staff as to how ST is to be SEEN as (not just legally compliant but) Walking-the-Talk too?

    Even if permission was not required (but I think it is), shouldn't a quick note be sent off to the blogger just to let them know the picture would be used and give the person a chance to state a case for objecting if necessary?

    Personelly, I accept the editor's apology as fair... but remain surprised at the writers response (though maybe it was written by SPH lawyers or their Risk Management people, if they have any, really)... it didn't sound very sincere. Is an apology only given because it caused distress?
    Is it the right way to treat people who come to you with unhappiness simply by citing that their lawyers said it is OK... no laws were broken.

    If we accept that people do make mistakes sometimes...how about a similar apology .... plain and simply because it was an oversight?
    Last edited by Keltzar; 15th August 2006 at 01:04 AM.

  12. #172

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    Quote Originally Posted by lightning
    humm... just wondering why people spend tons of money to copyright their stuff if there is such a thing as automatic copyright? There is a specialised group of lawyers dealing with IP and copyright documentation. Pictures uploaded to friendster or any of the free blog may belong to freindster or the blog site automatically. If they allow the pictures to be published, the individual owners of the photos have no case to sue them. Just my thought.

    So what is the next course of action if ST just ignore. What else can we do?
    hopefully they don't ignore because there's another news organisation that is interested in this story but I would of course hope ST can do the gentlemanly thing and apologise in the newspaper and we can just close this issue and hope it doesn't happen again.

  13. #173

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltzar
    This again reinforces the very REAL need for photographers to always DOWNSIZE and REDUCE resolution/quality of the pictures they post on the web.

    Anyway, I don't think privacy issues really apply ...? Blogging is web-publishing. If there was no intention to show a picture publicly, why publish it online?

    And even if it is proven there was nothing legally wrong in publishing those photos... doesn't ST expect people to respect the copyrights to the photos shot by ST photographers and published in their newspaper? Why are there not clearer guidelines for their staff as to how ST is to be SEEN as (not just legally compliant but) Walking-the-Talk too?

    Even if permission was not required (but I think it is), shouldn't a quick note be sent off to the blogger just to let them know the picture would be used and give the person a chance to state a case for objecting if necessary?

    Personelly, I accept the editor's apology as fair... but remain surprised at the writers response. Is an apology only given because it caused distress?

    We accept that mistakes do happen sometimes...how about an apology in the way the editor did, simply because it was an oversight?
    Yes, Blogging is web publishing but did the Bloggers "publish" their Blogs with statements like "iwant2bfamous".

    What is correct is for the publication to clarify to the audience that it's not the intent of those people/faces shown publishing their Blogs so that "iwant2bfamous".

    Yes we accept that mistakes do happen. But we also have to demand appropriate acknowledgement of mistakes and/or compansation. If not why got defamation suit flying around fot notable personnels.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  14. #174
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    West
    Posts
    3,311

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    You want to know what value sph places on the value of their IP ..? Go get a quote at what they charge for reproduction of various types/sizes of articles...


    Anyway, if there is real concern... above the editors, is the Group Managing Editor.
    Last edited by Keltzar; 15th August 2006 at 01:16 AM.

  15. #175
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    I would offer an alternative viewpoint - it is usually better to email/write than to call. If the matter escalates further, emails/letters would serve as a good evidence trail, rather than calls which are mostly untraceable.

    Imagine if at a subsequent stage, you decide you wish to raise the point that "many photographers/members of the public" have raised issues about their article, and when asked to substantiate, you are then able to source for the emails/letters. For phone calls, it would be difficult to similarly track and trace.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock
    yes I think it's more effective to call them rather than email.thanks for the help! and avoid spam heheh.

  16. #176
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Online petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?STCopyr&1

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN
    Using the photos is but half of the story.

    Those people identifyable in your article might not have intention to be to be associated with your "iwant2bfamous" title. Especially the following paragraph.... :"and every one of this bloggers have this aim: Read me. I want to be famous". This assumution is flawed.

    Rather, most Sg bloggers are personal in nature for express themselves in cyberspace and sharing amongst friends and whosoever their target audiences or to have their personal point of view "documented". Your article MIGHT be more applicapable to the latter.

    Then again, for the latter, examples such as Citizen journalism would have either gone for or against the main stream publications either to support or defend the cause. These bloggers clearly also do not have "Read me. I want to be famous" intent, they are just being Singaporean wanting to add their 5c worth into current hot topics.

    Being a publication of big influence and broad audiences, an apology and/or clarification in the same publication is in order so that the distress to those people identified from the photos in your article can be redressed to the same audience of your publication.
    There was another article in the NEW Paper about china women coming to singapore at the pretense of studying but ended up as mistress. In the same issue was an editorial on how to identify china girls from singporean girls and included are 10 photos of ladies taken from the street which was used as a test if readers can identify correctly. Later one singaporean lady in the photo responded when she found out and was unhappy that aside from being associated in the topic, she also have china girlfriends and the editorial is not only unflattering to be generalized but indirectly associated with mistresses.

    Anyway, copyright is one issue but I think it has escalated beyond that. To exaggerate, imagien your photo, next to a photo of a pig, and then the word "pig?" next to that. They technically did not call you a pig but the context is there.

  17. #177

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    I am sending out an e-mail with a request for an apology according to the criteria listed in Section 16 of the Letter, found at http://www.petitiononline.com/STCopyr/petition.html

    Will keep you guys updated on the response
    Last edited by mattlock; 16th August 2006 at 08:17 AM.

  18. #178
    Senior Member redstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Beyond the outer limits
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    sgforums thread is dead. nvm...

  19. #179

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    Dear Matlock

    I applaud your fine effort in bringing up this issue and for standing up to your principles. However, as someone who has worked in both SPH and Mediacorp, I can safely say that yours would be an exercise in futility. The two companies used to compete against each other for one-upmanship but that has since been put to a stop following a decree issued by a senior politician. The two company has now been merged. With all their legal might, frankly you do not stand a ghost of a chance against them.

    However, if you were to bring this issue to the attention of some foreign media, they might champion your cause. At the end of they day, you may get the mighty SPH to issue a small apology in print.

    But be prepared to lose your citizenship or PR status (if you are not local). I sincerely hope it would not come to that. But if it does, and you need a safe haven, drop me a note. I know a EU country you can re-locate to in a matter of months.

    Good luck and all the best!
    Last edited by astroboy; 17th August 2006 at 02:56 AM.

  20. #180
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

    Isn't he already on his way to NY?

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 478910 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •